On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:59:08 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:11:33 -0800 "laurent FANIS" > > > --- src/bin/e_fm.c.orig Wed Nov 7 11:45:43 2007 > > > +++ src/bin/e_fm.c Fri Dec 7 15:44:09 2007 > > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ struct _E_Fm2_Smart_Data > > > E_Drop_Handler *drop_handler; > > > E_Fm2_Icon *drop_icon; > > > E_Fm2_Mount *mount; > > > - char drop_after; > > > + signed char drop_after; > > > unsigned char drop_show : 1; > > > unsigned char drop_in_show : 1; > > > unsigned char drop_all : 1; > > > > why? char is normally signed. are you using a strange architecture? i can > > see how this would break if char is not signed on a particular arch. > > you cannot rely on the signedness when using "char". if there is code that > requires it one way or the other, then the type must be explicit. one > example of a strange architecture is powerpc ;). "char" defaults > to "unsigned char" on ppc systems. yeah - though generally i rarely use short/char AND use negative numbers with them, so it is highly rare to hit this. :) -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
